FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

Sat Feb 27 01:24:57 UTC 2010

On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 01:54 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> > A package destroying people's hardware shouldn't be there in the first
> > place, because it should have stayed in testing for an extended period
> > of time. Thus this is not a valid reason, as the other ones that were
> > brought up were not.
> 
> What if nobody with that hardware was using updates-testing? Then it'll only 

The good is not the enemy of the perfect. A 90% chance of noticing a
problem is still better than a 10% chance, even if it's not 100%.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net